Replies

This is an excellent analysis by Power Line and Scott Johnson. As a lawyer who has been around the block (many times), I agree with his analysis here of the underlying law. He also draws a very important distinction that appears in the Pentagon Papers case.

Though the law does NOT permit the federal government from barring the publication of this information, which would be prior restraint, it specifically does allow the prosecution of the newspaper after publication. By analogy, the law does not bar any individual from going into a bank. It does, however, provide for his prosecution if he robs the bank while he is there. The NY Times has just robbed the bank of American national security, "big time," to borrow a phrase from the Vice President.

Everyone involved should be identified, charged, and jailed if found guilty. And any reporters or editors who claim the right to "protect their sources" and refuse to testify, should be jailed for contempt until the War on Terror is over, however long that takes.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Hyenas, Jackals, and Monsters with Microphones"

Everyone involved should be identified, charged, and jailed if found guilty. And any reporters or editors who claim the right to "protect their sources" and refuse to testify, should be jailed for contempt until the War on Terror is over, however long that takes.

I completely agree. It is well established that the First amendment is NOT absolute. Just like you or I would be criminally culpable for the harm caused by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, so should the media be held criminally culpable for the damage caused to our national security by their publishing of photos of military installations, covert operations and methods, etc.

I would live to see old Pinch do the frog walk with the raincoat over his face.

Well stated.